"get hit with nudity"
I just don't understand how something so natural as the human form can be offensive. If there's no children or violence involved, what actually is the problem?

Karen1573 said:

Quote - Please also remember that Renderosity is based in the US and subject to US laws. US views on some subjects (such as sex) can be quite different to the European view ;-)

Yes, one simply needs to view American televisions shows like Desperate Housewives a show about women humping anything in or out of pants, not to mention a plethora of advertising showing people of all ages in various forms of undress, in erotice poses, sensuously enticing people to buy. Then there are all the "unrated" DVD versions of movies that are so popular, the warnings of sexual situations prior to many shows airing on television, and let's not forget to mention so called "Pageant's" where children are dressed up like young adults and paraded on stage. I could go on, but I won't...Oh yes, US views on subjects such as sex can be quite different to the European view ;-P

jumpstartme2 said:

Quote - Ok, so what happens when Joe Shmoe 'forgets', for whatever reason,  to tick the nudity content advisory when he uploads?

Yup, you guessed it...an alert Moderator or Admin pulls the thumb just like they do now and notifies the member of their infraction, just like they do now. Continued violations are handled the way a TOS violation is handled, with warnings, suspensions, and then banning. 

Quote - I just don't understand how something so natural as the human form can be offensive

**
** Nudity doesnt bother me, doesn't bother you, and doesn't bother a good portion of the member-base, but there are those that find it offensive....like was said above, we can't please everyone all the time, but we do try to find a middle ground. :)

Quote - ...an alert Moderator or Admin pulls the thumb

Tainted, are you suggesting that we are not 'alert'? ;)  errr.....ahem.. Ok, well..you might be onto something there..Im not always alert, but I am almost always here...2 pm to 6-7 am the next morning with my face on the keyboard so I get some slack on the alert part :laugh:

**This issue regarding nudity annoys me, not just here but in life generally. All I want is for someone who is offended by this to tell the rest of us just WHAT is so wrong, all I want is an explanation, maybe then I can try to understand.

**

first off, i've never seen anyone say anything about those pictures at all.  this is the first time i've seen you or anyone else say anything about it. maybe i've missed ebots, but i can say i've waited several times for responses from moderators and not received any. 

and you're avoiding the issue by saying, "check if you're unsure."  because each time this comes up, the person wasn't unsure.  they knew their figure had a covered breast, or was wearing something, and the staff decided something else.  if the judgement didn't seem complex and almost arbitrary, it wouldn't keep coming up.  so either the point is, "you should ask even if you are sure, because you probably don't understand our rules,"  or the people making the decisions need more examples of what they do and don't find acceptable.

and just as a codicil, i've already seen multiple instances of people marking fully clothed figures as nudes (and saying so) due to fear over the new rules.  i emphasize fear, because they haven't been at all disrespectful or rebellious.  they want to follow the rules, but it's not clear how to.

i'm not debating the rule in general.  but this keeps coming up because your implementation of the rule is beyond what average people can understand.  this isn't a middle ground, it's a swamp.

Darth_Poserus:
*#1: "Consistency across the site".
#2: "Ability to feature images in the newsletter "
#3: "Not such an "in your face" shock on opening the gallery"

Yet when I look at those a little more I find that:

1 Banning nudity in thumbnails doesn't provide any  additional "consistency across the site" whatsoever. 

Because, nudity is still allowed in the main images themselves, its still allowed in certain parts of the marketplace, and it's still allowed here in the forums too. To have any consistency with the rest of the site at all, there'd have to be a site wide ban on nudity as well.

2 Banning nudity in a thumbnail image, does not make it any easier too include an image from the gallery in the newsletter either. 

Because obviously if you don't want a nudity in a thumbnail in the newsletter, then it follows that you don't want some other plain thumb in there, that leads to the image with nudity in it either.
 
3 If folks who don't want to see nudity, were using the nudity filters they were already so graciously, and  freely provided by rosity to begin with, then there isn't any "in your face shock" whatsoever. 

As they won't see any nudity to begin with.
*1. Yes it is consistent. All areas of the site now disallow nudity. (Previously this was only the case within the marketplace.)

1. We don't want nude thumbnails in the email newsletters; it doesn't follow that we forbid nude pictures. We just don't want members (who may have the nudity filter ticked, only access Renderosity in private, and/or be using a shared email address) spitting coffee across their keyboards when they're checking their morning mail. (Any nude images include the small text warning "Nudity" - just as in the Galleries.)
2. What if I want to see nudity (which I do) but don't want to be assaulted with a wave of supersized mammaries every time I open the gallery page? Just as, if I like to buy Playboy, but don't expect to find nipples or genitals on the front cover... and if I buy a porn DVD, I might (in fact almost certainly will) find nudity on the box covers, but not a "money shot". 
   What if I want to refer a friend or relative here to view some of the very fine and tasteful nudes on here... but they're frightened away the first time they enter the gallery, thinking "Man, I didn't realise Kaz was into those sites..."

Just some food for thoughts ;-)

Cobalt_dream, let me turn this around.
Can you please gives us some examples of wording that you feel is absolute and would be understood by absolutely everybody?

You can rant all you want about religious nuts and puritanical politicians, but you probably haven't considered the whole issue until you've mentioned greedy lawyers.

As a disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I am not privy to the workings and thoughts  of Bondware's management or legal departments.

A quick story that I hope will make some sense. Years ago I worked at a printing company. We had a lot of customers of varying types throughout the country. We weren't having a very good quarter, and one of our salesmen, who existed solely on commission, brought in a prospect who published soft core... well, porn is too strong a term; I saw samples, and I'd say the content probably wasn't much worse than the pinups here. However, I was forced to oppose --rather vigorously-- our taking this client on, even though the money looked good. Why? Because under state law at the time (I don't know whether it's changed; I just know that I changed jobs!), I could personally be named in a lawsuit for sexual harrassment if another client happened to walk into my office as I was preparing the soft-core files for printing and got offended at it. I could get into legal hot water, my employer could get into legal hot water, and the soft-core client could get into legal hot water. It wasn't worth the short-term gain, and I eventually prevailed --but not before hearing all the arguments I'm reading in these threads: "What are you, a puritan?" "It's a freedom of speech issue!" "Do nipples scare you?"

Bondware is a company. Bondware likely has a legal department. Bondware's lawyers have likely told Bondware that all the nudity filters in the world won't protect them from an ambulance chaser who sees a chance to make a buck. Yeah, we all know you shouldn't look at unfiltered Renderosity galleries at work, even during lunch. We also all know people do it anyway. The lawyers do, too. The employee would be at risk (no problem; his fault), his employer would be at risk (no problem; they employed an idiot), but the deep-pockets theory of legal wrangling in this country means that even Bondware would be at risk if someone thought there might be some money in it. Even though Bondware would likely win any such challenges, the damage to their bank account and reputation probably make it worth it for their lawyers to dictate that all thumbnails be G-Rated, period. Yes, everyone's still at risk if the user is looking at the full-size nude image when someone walks in and sees a chance to put their kid through college, but the thumbnail policy limits everyone's, um, exposure. We as users can live with that or go somewhere else.

I can't say with any authority that that's Bondware's official position, but as a person who's been in discussions like this at the company level, I bet the lawyers have been involved. Blaming it on individuals who can't handle nudity is convenient, but probably not altogether accurate.

I don't care about nudity (or nudity flags for that matter).  The main concern here is clarity - as Cobalt_dream mentions and how this thread started.  It seems that not only is nudity a concern, but so is suggestive nudity.  This is where the swamp waters roll in and flood paradise.

Nudity is defined as (pulling up Merriam-Webster here, using the most appropriate definition):

3 a : devoid of clothing : UNCLOTHED  b : UNDRAPED   used of an artistic representation of a human figure especially in sculpture and painting

Now, we can all understand and appreciate that 'see-through' clothing is just as 'revealing' as nudity so that can't be used as a case for non-nudity.  The problem then moves onto suggestive nudity - wherein the 'offending' body parts are clothed/draped but that they are suggested through the clothes (contours, for instance).

We must remember that these images are 3D renderings of 3D representations on a computer.  'Suggestive nudity' is of only two basic types: morphed/molded into the clothing for realistic impression by the artist or added by the content creator for similar impression.  This means that the suggestive nudity actually resides in the clothes (!).  Can clothes be nude?

With the advent of dynamic cloth simulation, there is obviously a third type which is more indicative of reality: clothing that receives its suggestion from the underlying form.  But that still, pardon the pun, skirts the issue.  Is it considered nudity if a photographer takes a photo of a woman in a dress of fine material and the wind happens to cause features to impress on that dress which are suggestive?  I don't think that would get very far in a court of law.

These are murky waters - I suggest the cardboard box/large armor clad clothing approach. :)

well if you're using satanica's willy then you cant use dynamic cloth with it cos for some reason it tends to mess up. ya have to use a primitive ball instead...so technically they aint nekkid...unless ya think the ball has no clothes on

My biggest problem with the nudity in the thumbnail policy is that the gallery looks like nothing more than a series of head shots. And if the reason for the "no nudity" is to prevent (god forbid) some anal retentive person from seeing nudity then why won't they allow the black strips to hide the naughty parts?

cos it looks less professional if there are loads of black strips all over the gallery

well, for starters, no "you're not showing those parts, but she could be nude" rules.  then no, "her genitals and nipples are covered, but it's not technically clothing."  and no, "well, if you try and look for it, there might be the outline of a nipple."  basically, the same rules that apply to to movies (see splash), tv (see mtv, baywatch, the o.c., etc.), and print (see links i've posted).  even back in the day they allowed fig leaves. 

you're (collectively) completely out of step with rules for mainstream media if you're pulling thong shots.  tv and movie ratings are somewhat arbitrary, but they're a lot more consistent than things are here and now. 

you keep talking about with what people might not like to see. there's a lot of art here i don't like.  i don't have a right not to be offended.  i've sent co-workers to this site without any shame before this rule; and i've sent my parents to see my gallery at rdna after this rule.  to be honest, my friends and family would react negatively to,  "oh, she likes that kind of site," because it's a place where art is, by and large, very safe.  very in the bounds.  almost no one takes risks or tries to say anything daring with their work.  the new rule only amplifies that, while rdna, which doesn't even have tagging on nudity, promotes daring.    i don't think that's a coincidence.

i'm not saying that changing the thumbnail rule is the only solution, but there's definitely been a chilling effect on this gallery.  more and more, i see people post, "i tagged this nudity because i was afraid it would get pulled."  people are getting fearful about posting under the new rules.  if you actually want a gallery that's more than chicks in chainmail and pinups, you're going to have to do something to counteract the atmosphere of censorship.  not that you should want people to express more creative ideas or do work that's more conceptually daring.  maybe what you want is a lot of safe art that's well executed.  that's cool, too.  then just come up with some actual visual rules (not perceptual ones), and be exceedingly open and consistent about what you do and don't allow.  frankly, i think in that case it would be better to go the daz route, and just make it a contest with submissions and stop trying to control the look of an open gallery with restrictions rather than rewards.  if what you want is to compete with other galleries for illustrators, designers and artists in general rather than just in 3d or poser specifically, then something needs to change.

Quote - ...basically, the same rules that apply to to movies (see splash), tv (see mtv, baywatch, the o.c., etc.),...

re: movies (in america)- there are no rules. the MPAA gives an opinion. 

http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp

If you make a movie and it gets an R rating, you cannot go to them MPAA and ask what you need to take out to get a PG rating. You must change your film and resubmit.

re: tv - Broadcast television (baywatch, the o.c., etc) are not subject to the same rules as cable tv (Mtv). TV programs (and movies that have been modified for broadcast) are voluntarily rated by the broadcast and cable television networks or by the program distributor. Accuracy and consistency is regulated by the TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board.

neither of these rating systems describe their expectations/ratings as explicitly as renderositie's TOS nor do they guarantee consistency.

OK, cobalt, you're now changing from saying it's a problem with clarity, to not liking the rules.

Thong shots may be perfectly acceptable on your TV Times or whatever; they're not here.
Edit: And Tyger_Purr is also correct re classification. There's a reason why these things are judged by a panel, as they are here.

Re; rights: I don't have a right to buy stamps at the post office, but when I walk in and ask for some, I expect to get served. I don't have a right to be served without rudeness at a restaurant, or eat my meal in peace without screaming kids banging into my table and giving me a headache, but if it happens, I won't go back. This is about Renderosity doing what's right for Renderosity and a large proportion of the membership.

more and more, i see people post, "i tagged this nudity because i was afraid it would get pulled."

Yes, and when we see this we remove the tag, and contact the artist to educate them. They may or may not update their image notes.

Karen, you're sidestepping the more important question:  Would you like a V4 morph of your face made, so Drifterlee can do a Naked Karen In A Temple With A Sword piece?
edit: actually I'd like to use such for a certain "Ineffable Sadness of Being" piece that you're just begging to have made.

no, i'm not changing.  you asked what would be clearer.  in a sentence, clearer would be something consistent with the rulings of other bodies.  sorry, but i've been in Web design for years, and 90% of the time the answer to "how can we make this less complicated/clearer/simpler/etc.?" is "do it like everyone else."  when you don't, you generally cause confusion and 99% of the time, it's an unusable solution no matter what you try to do to make your specific way clear.  and i'm talking about a medium that's only been around a little more than a decade and barely has norms, and certainly not fixed ones.  you're talking about fighting the norms of industries that have been around most everyone here's life.  i'm not sure you can make that more clear.  and tyger_purr, i don't believe you are in any way correct.  the ratings on tv judged by one body, unless i'm mistaken.  and since i've seen pretty much the same videos on random video shows on broadcast as on mtv, i'd even say it's the same standard.  there is a difference between what is allowed before and after 10 p.m.  but it has nothing to do with cable vs. broadcast.

as for the mpaa, you can say it's an opinion, but i've seen several interviews and documentaries talk about the specific no-nos, and how they've changed over the years. so to me calling their rating an "opinion" rather than a set of rules is splitting hairs.

if you are asking how to be clearer about what seems to be arbitrary consensus- give lots and lots and lots of examples.  because i've seen a lot of images allowed that i thought were well outside of the rules applied to images people say they've had pulled.  basically, you're saying you want to apply a standard specific to the renderosity staff, and the only way to make that standard clear is to flood people with as much of that standard as there are say, pantene ads and magazine covers that set an alternative standard.   or, conversely, magazines behind the counter or in paper covers, parental advisories and r-rated movies.  basically, you've got to make your ratings style more public, so it can be second nature to people.  since your fighting a pretty huge and well-funded media structure to do that, good luck with that. 

Broadcast television is under the auspice of the FCC (in the US).  As far as I know, cable television is not (yet) under their auspices.  And this is clearly shown in that what you see on the HBO show "BullShit!" for instance (which is not restricted by time) not being seen on broadcast networks (ever).  Just pointing that out (my partner worked for PrimeStar, then DirecTV - both satellite tv - I also worked for the former in a consulting capacity).

I also agree with the sentiment that Renderosity is part of a business (Bondware) and must comply with a modicum of consumer-level concern.  Personally, it's either a clear delineation must be made in what is and what is not allowed in the galleries or, desiring to allow some sort of artistic freedom, spawn a separate site for the gallery that is not directly tied to the business.  Then any one who doesn't want to view nudity (or suggestive nudity) doesn't have to go there.  And you can set a clear delineation that isn't at the beck and call of the lawyers... ;)

you guys are both not reading what i'm writing.  i'm talking about the rating system, which is "voluntarily" adhered to by both cable and broadcast.  now, i suppose the same stuff could be on tbs as is on hbo.  but i'm betting they won't do that for several reasons.  but what goes on a station is one thing, how it's rated is another.  they don't internally rate, the TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board does.  mature audiences only is  not a tv vs. cable rating, it's one consistent rating system.

hence, as far as i can tell,  sex in the city has exactly the same editing to appear on broadcast as it does to appear on non-premium channels.

http://www.tvguidelines.org/ratings.asp

Quote - Re; rights: I don't have a right to buy stamps at the post office, but when I walk in and ask for some, I expect to get served.

In the US, at least, the Post Office can't refuse to sell you stamps, at least as long as you aren't breaking the law while in the Post Office. (And they are open, and they haven't run out of stamps, and you have a way of paying for them etc.)

Quote - as for the mpaa, you can say it's an opinion, but i've seen several interviews and documentaries talk about the specific no-nos, and how they've changed over the years. so to me calling their rating an "opinion" rather than a set of rules is splitting hairs.

 
I've also read that their standards vary depending on whether the film is from a major studio or not.

Quote - you're avoiding the issue by saying, "check if you're unsure." 

Not to mention just a tiny bit of hypocrisy. About a month ago, I was banned for a couple of weeks because I "checked if unsure" on a post. Why? My uncertainty was considered insincere. I even asked whether I had been banned for checking when I shouldn't have or not checking when I should have. The answer? Tight-lipped silence. After all, asking was insincere too, because I knew what I was banned for: I was banned for being bad. Everybody knows what "bad" is!

I spent the two weeks tightening my cilice and mortifying the flesh. Not that I need to mortify it any more than the years have done for me. I also wailed and gnashed my teeth. Very unpleasant business.

And now the moment of truth: Do I check for violence, having mentioned my cilice? Oh what the heck; I'll try not.

M

no, i'm not changing.  you asked what would be clearer.  in a sentence, clearer would be something consistent with the rulings of other bodies.

That's what I said. You're saying you're unhappy with the rules. You don't want us to rephrase them, you want them to be different.

The owners of the site and the admin of the site have decided on what they want displayed, or not displayed, in thumbnails. Hence, the rules are what they are. If you can suggest some wording which you feel would more clearly explain the rules that are in place, please do.

I understand that not everybody can agree on this topic. (Me, today, personally I would like to ban every image in this gallery that features a cross-eyed model.) If there is confusion, then I will try to allay it. If you're asking for the rules to be changed, then you're more than welcome to post in the Suggestions forum.

--

pjz - thank you, I'm flattered, but I wouldn't be comfortable with that. Being on staff here unfortunately makes one a target for certain groups, and I would be nervous of waking up one morning to find my likeness frankensteined onto Mike's body, or dismembered in buckets, or violating a goat wearing a strap-on, or... well you get the picture. (Or not, I hope, hahaha!)

Of course if you want to create a character which is inspired by my cheery grin then please do, but if it bears a good resemblance then I would ask you not to share that morph. [Although legally I probably couldn't stop you, which is another topic entirely, but I'm sure you'd behave ethically :-) ]

"Naked Karen In A Temple With A Sword"
Sorry, I know there are serious issues going on here, but I was totally sidetracked by this. I'd love to see this, but just make sure you adhere to the TOS!!

Quote - Not to mention just a tiny bit of hypocrisy. About a month ago, I was banned for a couple of weeks because I "checked if unsure" on a post. Why?

Mick, please don't tell lies in the forums. You were banned for repeatedly, despite many many requests not to do so, continually using the violence, nudity and language tags on posts which contained none of that material. You didn't ask any question, nor did you approach a member of staff at any time.

Thanks.

Quote - and tyger_purr, i don't believe you are in any way correct.  the ratings on tv judged by one body, unless i'm mistaken.

http://www.tvguidelines.org/default.asp

Other Frequently Asked Questions How are programs rated?
Programs are voluntarily rated by the broadcast and cable television networks.

What is syndicated programming, and how is it rated?
Syndicated programs are those programs such as talk shows, game shows, and archived reruns of dramas and sitcoms first run by networks or cable systems, which are purchased by local television stations. The distributor of such programs is usually responsible for rating them.

Who rates a movie that has been edited for television?
Theatrical movies rarely run uncut on broadcast or basic cable network television. The broadcast or basic cable network edits these movies according to the network's standards. After the movie has been modified, it is given a TV Parental Guideline rating. Premium cable networks like HBO and Showtime do run uncut theatrical movies. These movies carry the original MPAA movie rating, in addition to supplemental content advisories provided by the network.

Where do I send complaints about a program's rating?
The TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board is responsible for ensuring that the ratings are applied with accuracy and consistency. Individuals can contact the Board via mail, phone, or e-mail to voice complaints

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_content_rating_systems
The TV Parental Guidelines system was first proposed in the United States on December 19, 1996 by the Congress, the television industry and the FCC, and went into effect on January 1st, 1997 on most major broadcast and cable networks in response to public complaints of increasingly explicit sexual content, graphic violence and strong profanity in television programs. It was established as a voluntary-participation system, with ratings to be determined by the individually-participating broadcast and cable networks. It was specifically designed to be used with the V-chip, which was mandated to be built into all television sets manufactured since 2000, but the guidelines themselves have no legal force.

Quote - and since i've seen pretty much the same videos on random video shows on broadcast as on mtv, i'd even say it's the same standard.  there is a difference between what is allowed before and after 10 p.m.  but it has nothing to do with cable vs. broadcast.

Cable's limitations are self imposed to attract an audiance.

Quote - as for the mpaa, you can say it's an opinion, but i've seen several interviews and documentaries talk about the specific no-nos, and how they've changed over the years. so to me calling their rating an "opinion" rather than a set of rules is splitting hairs.
 

http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp

They seem to think they are giving an opinion.

"G rating-This is a film which contains nothing in theme, language, nudity and sex, violence, etc. that would, in the view of the Rating Board, be offensive to parents whose younger children view the film.
PG-13 rating- ...A PG-13 film is one which, in the view of the Rating Board, leaps beyond the boundaries of the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, or other contents, but does not quite fit within the restricted R category.
R rating - In the opinion of the Rating Board, this film definitely contains some adult material.
NC-17 - This rating declares that the Rating Board believes this is a film that most parents will consider patently too adult for their youngsters under 17. "

I did find the PG rating descripton interesting

"The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children. Obviously such a line is difficult to draw. In our pluralistic society it is not easy to make judgments without incurring some disagreement."

I too have seen interviews and documentaries talk about the specific no-nos. This is where i learned that the MPAA will not tell you specificaly why you are getting a rating.

You may find section The rating process herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA_film_rating_system

interesting. 

for example
"It is a common misconception that if a movie uses "f**k" in a nonsexual context more than once, it will automatically receive an R rating. In reality, PG-13 movies are routinely allowed two or three uses, such as A Civil Action (which uses it at least 3 times)"

Quote - if you are asking how to be clearer about what seems to be arbitrary consensus- give lots and lots and lots of examples.  because i've seen a lot of images allowed that i thought were well outside of the rules applied to images people say they've had pulled.  basically, you're saying you want to apply a standard specific to the renderosity staff, and the only way to make that standard clear is to flood people with as much of that standard as there are say, pantene ads and magazine covers that set an alternative standard.   or, conversely, magazines behind the counter or in paper covers, parental advisories and r-rated movies.  basically, you've got to make your ratings style more public, so it can be second nature to people.  since your fighting a pretty huge and well-funded media structure to do that, good luck with that. 

The more specific you get, the more often you will have to modify it to meet current standards and to stop people who want to skirt the edge, to find a way to show as much as they can while being technicaly "legal".

Some may say an example of this (and i'm not trying to start a debat on this) would be the Fairy pictures being naked children with wings put on to be technicaly legal as faries are hundreds of years old. likewise with pointy ears being mature elves.

karen - no, i'm not saying "i'm unhappy with the rules."' otherwise, i'd say it's simpler to get rid of the rule altogether.  mainstream and popular media is a horrible standard for an "art" community, and completely at odds with my experience of various professional creative communities and publications.  what i'm saying is, to repeat myself, it would be clearer to have rules that everyone is already familiar with.  not better, not more conducive to creativity, clearer.

i already said how to promote your renderosity specific standard, which seems to include what people can imagine as well as what's actually visible (i say that purely based on several threads on the issue and people who say they've had their images pulled).   again to repeat, show an example, with your reasoning, and do it again and again.  repetition is the best way you can set an alternate standard. 

oh, and if you want to promote brand and mod opinion, why are staff picks in the forum but not in the galleries?

mickmca - without getting into a debate on altercations, i think the meaning here was check with a mod if unclear, not check nudity, violence, etc. if unclear.  same verb, different meanings.  general fyi, i'm clarifying just to make it clear that the brouhaha is not about someone who tried to clear their image (or post) with mods first.  and because, if i'm not mistaken, the mods do not want people to check nudity or violence if unsure.  i do know people have said they've gotten in trouble for that.

AnAardvark - i'm sure money matters; it always does.  i never said different.

Drifterlee, I did sort of answer to pjz, sorry I missed that you'd asked a similar question.

If you feel like depicting me dealing out pain to a horrible monster, please feel free. I'd just ask that you not share any morph you created with others, since neither you nor I would have any control over further uses to which it could be put.

Quote - you guys are both not reading what i'm writing.  i'm talking about the rating system, which is "voluntarily" adhered to by both cable and broadcast.  now, i suppose the same stuff could be on tbs as is on hbo.  but i'm betting they won't do that for several reasons.  but what goes on a station is one thing, how it's rated is another.  they don't internally rate, the TV Parental Guidelines Monitoring Board does.  mature audiences only is  not a tv vs. cable rating, it's one consistent rating system.

hence, as far as i can tell,  sex in the city has exactly the same editing to appear on broadcast as it does to appear on non-premium channels.

http://www.tvguidelines.org/ratings.asp

Right, rating system wise.  But you also inferred something about televised content:

there is a difference between what is allowed before and after 10 p.m.  but it has nothing to do with cable vs. broadcast.

Content is controlled by the FCC/broadcasters or not at all.   There is also another level to this - televised censorship.  Way back (and I can't remember the specifics), broadcasters decided to implement a censor system for what was allowed to be televised (both visuals and language).  This, of course, goes beyond the rating system - which is content advisory - and just removes content that is deemed offensive altogether (whether that be a little splice here or a bleep there).

I'm agreeing, just clarifying the point of content control - not ratings. :)

Interestingly, the MPAA has a very general rating system (...,PG, PG-13, R, X,..) whereas the TV Parental Guidelines rating system includes more levels and also includes specific information (AL, N, V, AC, GL, BN, ...) in the form of the Content Advisory.

Now the funny part.  Okay, you're talking AV.  AV and some music is rated.  I've never seen still images rated - is there even a system for such a thing?  I don't think that applying an AV rating system to 3D CG still renders makes sense - but there are 'broadcast' style issues when displayed over the internet and not in a restricted/membership context.
What do you think?

Karen I was just kidding. Since you look underage.

what i'm saying is, to repeat myself, it would be clearer to have rules that everyone is already familiar with.

But that is the same as saying "change the rules". Our rules are NOT those used by the film board, the tv industry, the magazine industry, or any other.

i already said how to promote your renderosity specific standard, which seems to include what people can imagine as well as what's actually visible (i say that purely based on several threads on the issue and people who say they've had their images pulled).*

I think there must be some misunderstanding here. Let me state again:
If a thumb shows a human figure without clothes, it will be removed.*
If a thumb shows the genitals, either outright or through transparent clothing, it will be removed.
If a thumb shows female nipples or aureolae, either outright or through transparent clothing, it will be removed.
If a thumb shows more buttocks than would be hanging out of a standard bikini, either outright or through transparent clothing, it will be removed. (IE, no dental-floss thongs, and no butt "cleavage".)

If a thumb has language that is sexually suggestive, or effectively a "censored" type statement, or uses black bars/dots/blurs over the genitals/breasts/butt, it will be removed.

*No, we won't be removing head and shoulder shots where the female model doesn't have clothing visible on her shoulders. Why would we? She is not obviously naked - she could be wearing a tube top or strapless bra or anything else.
Conversely, if a figure is arranged in that nice artistic way where the hands and legs are posed to cover the genitals and breasts, but the figure is quite obviously naked - yes, that would be removed. Because the model is wearing no clothes.

Now something you mentioned earlier and I forgot to recap on - outlines of nipples. If the material is opaque (i.e. not transparent) then it's fine. "Coathook weather" happens, LOL. However, if the material is transparent and the aureolae/nipple can be seen through the fabric, then yeah, that would be removed. (And that's why we tend to take these things to a panel - to make sure we're not relying on one person's eyesight.)

And remember - when I say "removed" - I'm not talking about the image being deleted or the person being warned, or whatever. I'm talking about the thumb being replaced with a non-nude one OR the standard Renderosity content advisory.

OK - I really really hope everyone is as tired as I am, because I'm going offline and to bed. Night all.

Drifterlee, you're sweet. I'll be 34 in a couple of weeks :m_laugh:

I know. You looked even younger in that other hair style. Trust me. It's great to look young. Enjoy it!

Quote - > Quote - Not to mention just a tiny bit of hypocrisy. About a month ago, I was banned for a couple of weeks because I "checked if unsure" on a post. Why?

Mick, please don't tell lies in the forums....

You didn't ask any question, nor did you approach a member of staff at any time.

Of course, it would be another lie to say "Did too!" I asked the question in the thread itself, and the ban was issued within hours. Fortunately, I didn't keep the emails, and unfortunately, even if I had, it's against the TOS to actually post what the admins email to us. So believe whom you prefer.

For the record, is telling lies in the forums a hanging offense too? Like being insincere?

Inquiring minds... No wait, I got nailed last time I said that.

M

um, drifterlee, some have had images pulled for having thumbnails with only text.  otherwise, i personally would do that.  and it keeps coming up because it keeps being a problem.   just as a mention, again working on the web for years, if your users keep having a problem with your site and you don't fix it, you'll keep hearing about it until you either don't have the problem or don't have the users.  no matter how many users post saying, "the link is right there," or "i don't see the problem with how this app works,"  if it's a problem for a "large proportion of members," then a minority of people who do have the problem will say so.

the same way people who don't want to hear about a topic will post cat pictures, despite the ease of just not reading the thread ;D.  people make different choices, and react differently to the same things.  it would be boring otherwise.

tyger_purr- that is a very long post saying exactly what i already linked to. tv ratings are through one body, and voluntary for both broadcast and cable.  you are the one conflating premium and standard channels, and presuming that for some reason a single corporation would bother to have a different standard for standard cable stations and broadcast (in addition to the difference between premium and broadcast), even though there's no benefit in having more than two standards, no evidence they've implemented more than that, and the shows would still get a different rating. 

but getting away from specifics, i can say i've seen the same videos with the same bleeps, the same episodes with the same gaps, and the same ads on broadcast and standard cable.    the whole reason this keeps coming up is because most corporate media, the media most people experience, is pretty consistent across distribution methods, while here it's very different.   if everyone had to be a lawyer to obey the laws, then they'd be broken a lot more frequently than they already are.  things have to be consistent to be instinctively understood and applied.  i'd say being simple and consistent is the most important aspect of usability, and that goes for anything from web apps to kitchen appliances to civil engineering.

karen - we're still talking cross purposes.  first off, you asked how to make this more clear.  your standards are obviously unclear, or there wouldn't keep being problems.  it's that simple.  you're keeping them, and that's fine, it's just against clarity and usability.  but you didn't ask, "how do we keep things unclear?" you asked, "how do we make things more clear?"  it has nothing to do with being happy, or liking things. it has to do with a solution that does what you say you want to acheive and is usable.  if you don't have the flexibility of changing implementation, fine, but it has nothing to do with me changing anything i've said.  if what you wanted to know was, "how do you suggest we change our support?" that's an altogether separate question, but already answered.

i didn't say restate your rules that people are already having a problem with.   i said show examples.  not talk about examples, show them.  of real art work. if you can get permission, of real mistakes people have made, in either direction. for instance, instead of restating rules that don't have anything to do with any of the problems i've seen posted, why don't you actually post versions of thongs that are ok and ones that are not ok?  especially if they include popular marketplace items?  as another instance of ambiguity, iirc, in one thread, it was said that an image that actually did not have a nude figure would have to be tagged with a warning because it looked like the figure was nude behind a shield. 

but the best thing i can say is analyze how daz does it.  because i've never seen anyone complain about their rules, other than for figure textures in their store.  but then, i've also never seen anyone get a warning or banned for posting inappropriate materials, either.  mods just edit the offending image(s)  (in the forums, the only one of the galleries is partially open). 

and on that note, i'm done.  i've made my recommendation and more than said my piece.  i don't intend to debate nuances of tv programming standards.

drifterlee, I want that cat!  But, must love hockey. ;P

It's hawkfyr's cat. I borrowed him.

This one is my favorite.

""This issue regarding nudity annoys me, not just here but in life generally. All I want is for someone who is offended by this to tell the rest of us just WHAT is so wrong, all I want is an explanation, maybe then I can try to understand.""
Stormchaser:

I was one of the people who initially had a problem with the way the gallery looked.   No I didn't complain.  I just didn't look at anything labled content advisory (since Im wicked smart like that and clicked the filter) unless I knew the artist.

I feel though that the way the policy was implimented was asinine beyond belief.  Not to mention moderators refusal to comment on various magazine covers to clear up confusion.  I have heard and seen the extremes that some works were taken down due to the fact that the viewer could "imagine" that the subject might be nude beyond the scope of the viewable work.
that one gets a big 0.0 from me.

I've seen both sides of the issue.  There is some work on this site that is just beautiful - my own preference is nude art (NOT porn).  But my suspicion was raised when a member had a problem with one of his pics being removed because of a poke through nipple.  It was really no more than a really large breasted woman half naked.  I asked what meaning he was trying to convey with this and he said "none" - um ok.  Count me among the few but I don't consider a giant boobed woman standing half naked  - art?  Alas put on the other shoe and who am I to judge.

Anyway that's the perspective of someone who somewhat saw the need for some change.  Though I don't think the change that was necessary is possible, and I don't think that the change that was implemented is the one that best suits the situation.

I also shudder to think of all the works past and present we would lose if all nude children were banned.  Unfortunately I think the pervert lies in the minds of those who don't want it rather than those who do, they are the ones who see a cherub and think child porn - very unfortunate.

In the end I think the site was in a pickle - some of the work was previously very questionable and the gallery was being cluttered with gianted boobed mannequins.  Great art getting cluttered in with that.  I think they chose to err on the side of least damage and you can probably guess that no one solution would have pleased everyone.    

On the other hand - they could care a little more about members confusion and articulate the guidelines more clearly (imagining she might be nude so therefore she is ~wtf~)  And buttcheeks are nudity?  As a great man once said (Robert Barone)  "Its not my butt, just the fatty tissue at the top of my thighs"

jjroland - I understand the points you have made & I understand the gallery & thumbnail issue. My question was a general one to do with why people find nudity offensive. I just fail to see how anyone could be shocked by clicking on a picture & seeing an exposed nipple!

Snickers That is my fave cat pic too Drifterlee :laugh:

""**My question was a general one to do with why people find nudity offensive. I just fail to see how anyone could be shocked by clicking on a picture & seeing an exposed nipple!""

**yeah can't answer you there, as those VERY people had to deliberately choose to see nudity on thier profile.  I think there are some ppl in the world who just like to bitch probably.  Same type of ppl who go to boxing matches and complain about the violence Im sure...

We now have four cats. My daughter brought home a young wild barn cat, and he thinks he should climb into the fridge. he also figured out how to jump onto the kitchen counter and steal a piece of chicken off the platter - bad kitty!

I think jjroland hit it right on the head. If you don't want to see nudity you have the option not to see it.
I would just like a clear HONEST reason for the thumbnail issue. I can deal with whatever (inane) reason they come up with, however I would just like the true motivating reason for it.
At the end of the day sadly, you can either put up with it or post on other sites.  And as we have seen, there are artists whose style is on the racier side are leaving to do exactly that.

it was said that an image that actually did not have a nude figure would have to be tagged with a warning because it looked like the figure was nude behind a shield.  

I have heard and seen the extremes that some works were taken down due to the fact that the viewer could "imagine" that the subject might be nude beyond the scope of the viewable work.

This has been clarified and is not the case. 

PerfectN, we have stated over and over and over the reasons for the change. I listed them - again - on page 1 of this thread. If you choose not to believe them, that's fine. 

Mick - Here is the post; your ban was for setting the nudity, violence and language flags when your post contained none, despite repeated communications from staff (none of which you have ever replied to, as far as I am aware) requesting that you not do so and repeating and explaning the rules again and again. You can see that the post has been edited at 7.38am - that was me removing the tags. The email I sent you quite clearly stated what the ban was for. Not "asking questions". The post doesn't contain any question. Your ban was issued some hours later after discussion between myself and my colleagues.

We don't hang people for TOS violations (much as we might sometimes individually feel like it.)

Quote - Of course if you want to create a character which is inspired by my cheery grin then please do, but if it bears a good resemblance then I would ask you not to share that morph. [Although legally I probably couldn't stop you, which is another topic entirely, but I'm sure you'd behave ethically :-) ]

I hadn't thought of distributing it, although I guess I hadn't worked it out.  How about I give you the result and you can decide whether to give it to Drifterlee (edit: and to be precise, I won't give it to anyone else)?  PM me if you're truly interested, I won't keep bugging you about it.

How about having the nudity, violence and whatever other scary filter there is, on by default for uploads?

So you have to untick them?

No more "oops I forgot". If it's unticked, then it's deliberate.